I'm with IlyaK. It really depends on the woman.
Some can were anything, or nothing at all for that matter, and make it look fantastic!
Other's can try and try again, but are ultimately doomed.
Simply put, if you've got it, then you've got it. If you don't, then you don't.
You know, there was a discussion of this on Jezebel.com with some interesting comments, I don't exactly agree with them but they make a good point so I'll try to summarize:
1) Most guys who say they like "natural beauty" or "no makeup" really like natural-
looking makeup. They don't realize that celebrities with natural-looking makeup spend just as much time getting ready for events as the ones who wear really heavy makeup. For women who don't have their own makeup artist and hours to sit in a chair getting it done, it really takes less time to swipe on liquid eyeliner and bright red lipstick than to blend 4 colors of nude eyeshadow a la Jennifer Aniston.
2) So insisting on natural beauty is non-egalitarian because not everybody can be naturally beautiful, but more people can be unnaturally beautiful.
3) The most egalitarian approach to beauty is the most unnatural one, since your ability to be beautiful is only determined by how much you want to be beautiful and are willing to invest the necessary time... like the cast of Jersey Shore, who don't think of beauty as something you are (or aren't) born with, but the result of how many hours you spend in a tanning bed and how big you make your hair.
Now my opinion is that there's nothing wrong with thinking some people are just prettier than others and nothing can be done about it, as long as you don't determine a person's value entirely by their looks. And I certainly do think that so-called naturally beautiful women are more beautiful than Jersey Shore types. I am, however, wary of guys who say they prefer natural beauty as if they're doing a favor to women by saying so (not accusing Argus of doing that, his point is perfectly clear).
